HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-21-2004
HEARING EXAMINER MINUTES
JANUARY 21, 2004
The meeting of the Auburn Hearing Examiner was held on January 21, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council
Chambers of the Auburn City Hall. Those in attendance were as follows:
HEARING EXAMINER:
Diane L. VanDerbeek
STAFF: David Osaki, Mitzi McMahan, Shirley Aird and Patti Zook
Ms. VanDerbeek called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. explaining the order of procedures and swore in
staff and those in the audience intending on testifying.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. APPLICATION NO. VAR03-0015
The request of Frary Breckenridge for a variance to allow a six foot fence in the required yard
setback. The project is located at 2610 Hemlock Street SE.
Hearing Examiner opened the public hearing. Planner McMahan presented the staff report. The
applicant wants to replace an existing 72 inches tall fence with a new fence and relocate it approximately
three feet to the north to coincide with the existing north property line. Staff recommends approval of the
variance.
Hearing Examiner inquired about Finding of Fact 4 on page 4, about applicant wishing to replace existing
fence and to relocate the fence slightly. Planner McMahan clarified that Mrs. Breckenridge wants to
relocate the fence approximately three feet north of the old fence line. Hearing Examiner mentioned that
the photographs provided by Mrs. Breckenridge are unclear. Planner McMahan said one photo shows
the unimproved City lot. The bottom photo shows the existing fence.
Mrs. Breckenridge has read the staff report and thought there might be a misunderstanding. She plans
to bring the fence to meet the property line; fence was within property line before. One photo shows
property to the north of her and photo shows what she views [trucks]. She doesn't want to look at other
fence. She is trying to rebuild the fence on the property line.
Judi Rees, 113 16th Street SE, said her parents live next to Mrs. Breckenridge and showed a photograph.
She asked if Mrs. Breckenridge is replacing the entire fence because she is unsure what is being
replaced. Hearing Examiner asked about the paint on the fence. Ms. Rees said her parents don't object
to the fence being replaced.
Hearing Examiner noted that,in addition to the testimony of Ms. Rees, City received written comment
from Elmer Kerns which is marked as Exhibit 2 to the hearing. Exhibit 1 is the case file.
Mrs. Breckenridge showed a report from the Police Department. She is located at the end of the street
and the area has become a dumping ground. The report is from November and concerns a stolen van
that was abandoned in her driveway. Her home is being rebuilt after a fire. She was advised to enlarge
the words 'danger' and 'no trespassing' signs on the fence. She has trespassers from apartments to the
west and trespassers from the north; trespass problem; Her property overlooks the White River and
people try to access the river through her property.
Hearing Examiner expressed concern about the applicant redoing the fence and then spray painting on
the fence again the words 'danger' and 'no trespassing'. She is uninclined to increase the fence height
30 inches in order to spray paint signs on the fence. Mrs. Breckenridge spoke about repairing the fence
and that she was told to put signs on the fence to mark danger. He will consider the police report.
Community Development Administrator Osaki remarked that the City doesn't regulate aesthetics of
fences and that decorations on fence isn't regulated in the Code. Hearing Examiner wondered about a
PAGE 1
HEARING EXAMINER MINUTES
JANUARY 21, 2004
condition that speaks to fence being aesthetically pleasing and concurred that it is hard to regulate taste.
The fence is not attractive with spray painted four feet high words of 'danger' and 'no trespassing'.
Community Development Administrator Osaki said that City doesn't regulate fence aesthetics and
mentioned free speech issue. He offered to consult with the City Attorney.
Hearing Examiner asked Mrs. Breckenridge if she objects to a condition if the variance is granted that
she not paint words on the fence. Mrs. Breckenridge said the painting on the fence has been there since
the police report. The fence has been in place since 1965. Hearing Examiner asked how many times
since 1965 has she had problems and Mrs. Breckenridge said her house is unoccupied and is being
remodeled. Incidents multiply because no one lives there.
Hearing Examiner mentioned her intent is to approve the variance to allow the fence to be 30 inches
higher than the Code allows, with possible condition that fence not be spray painted with words. Would
Mrs. Breckenridge object to the condition and Mrs. Breckenridge said no.
Hearing Examiner will leave the record open for 1 week and asked Community Development
Administrator Osaki to consult with the City Attorney see if he could approve language related to
aesthetics of the fence. If City Attorney does not feel that under the Code a condition is supportable, let
Hearing Examiner know. If Community Development Administrator Osaki can come up with a condition
that Mrs. Breckenridge agrees to fine. Hearing Examiner to Mrs. Breckenridge, check with City Attorney
to see if under Code a condition can be imposed that if the variance is granted and fence is 30 inches
higher than Code permits, there is a way to regulate aesthetics of the fence. If City Attorney say can't
regulate under the Code, Community Development Administrator Osaki could propose a condition
regarding regulating the aesthetics of the fence. If Mrs. Breckenridge doesn't agree to condition then
notify Hearing Examiner by January 30.
Mrs. Breckenridge said that she needs to post danger signs because of holes on the property. Attorneys
told her she would be liable if someone is injured on her property.
Hearing Examiner said that she could post danger signs versus spray painting the word danger in four
foot high letters on the fence. Hearing Examiner left the record open.
Hearing Examiner joined the below two cases.
2. APPLICATION NO. VAR03-0014
The request of Howard J. McOmber, Sr./Skyline Properties, Inc., for a variance to allow for
existing substandard setbacks. The project is located at 111 - 4th Street NE.
3. APPLICATION NO. CUP03-0009
The request of Howard J. McOmber, Sr./Skyline Properties, Inc., for conditional use permit for
an existing dwelling that was developed as a 'group residence facility' to be converted into 12
dwelling units. The project is located at 111 - 4th Street NE.
Hearing Examiner opened the public hearing. Planner Aird remarked that the property is the former
Century House group home, had a common dining hall, no kitchens in the units, proposal is a reuse
property in tradition of multi-family housing. She mentioned the previous variance and conditional use
permit applications that received Hearing Examiner decisions, but never went to City Council and were
later withdrawn. This project is essentially the same as the previous project. She reviewed the condition
related to lot line adjustment. She spoke about the 50% rule which triggers the variance. She reviewed
the CUP conditions.
Mr. McOmber has had discussions with staff.
David Neveu, 1117 3rd Street NE, met the applicant before the meeting and asked him what he plans for
Century House and applicant said for low income families. He took the citizens academy with the Police
PAGE 2
HEARING EXAMINER MINUTES
JANUARY 21, 2004
Department a few years ago and noticed the low income housing on M Street has two calls every hour.
He is concerned about the number of police calls at low income housing. Hearing Examiner commented
that having the buildings renovated and occupied may enhance neighborhood security. She noted Mr.
Neveu's concerns related to neighborhood security.
Fred Clyde, 431 K Street NE, said that when the buildings were occupied previously the Fire Department
had to come several times because of fire alarms. Fire Department has used the buildings for training
purposes. He asked about the fire system. Parking area has a small area for cars. Site has only one
entrance to get out onto 4th Street and there is much traffic on K Street during summer ball games. He
spoke about more parking in the play area and that it would be nice to have more property on the fence
line and that the fence needs to be fixed.
Planner Aird had one additional comment that during lot line adjustment discussions, issue is that
buildings span property line. Regarding fire sprinklers, project engineer came in for a preapplication
meeting and met with the Fire Marshall and discussed this. Fire wall restrictions were mentioned.
Regarding egress of the parking lot, there are not a lot of options for requiring the applicant to change or
move
Hearing Examiner closed the public hearing and will issue the written decision within 10 days.
ADJOURNMENT:
With no further items to come before the Hearing Examiner, the meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
HEIAGND\MIN01-2004
PAGE 3